That's what Rudy says, anyway:
From there, Giuliani went on to explain that while the Second Amendment allows limited gun control, it also guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.Hmm--my copy of the Bill of Rights must be defective. I can't find anything about "limited gun control." I do find " . . . shall not be infringed," but I don't see " . . . shall only be infringed in a limited fashion."
By the way, what exactly is Rudy pinning himself down to, by supporting the idea of "limited gun control"? It would seem to me that the only thing that he is clearly saying is out of bounds is "infinite" gun control--which, I suppose, would be an outright ban on every kind of firearm. Good to know that he acknowledges the Second Amendment will not permit that, but then again, that can be said of even those who claim that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right to keep and bear 18th century firearms.
I don't know--maybe I'm overly skeptical--Rudy seems to be winning over some gun owners:
Just that easily, Micola was sold. “I was undecided, but now I’m voting for him,” saidGlad to see that gun owners are asking the tough questions, and not falling for any kind of evasive "answers." By the way, Mr. Micola, when you say that you "like everything he stands for," are you saying you like his definition of freedom?
Micola, who is from nearby Nashua. “I like everything he stands for. The only thing I was concerned about what his stance on gun control, and now he’s answered that.”
Speaking of what Rudy says (these days) about gun rights/"gun control," I'm still burning with curiosity about what he said to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
I wonder if he even bothered with the word "limited." If anyone can find the text or a recording of that speech, please let me know, either by comment, or by emailing me at 45superman@gmail.com.
Stumble it!
6 comments:
I guess we'll all need to counter this falsehood with our own repetition:
The Second Amendment clearly states that the federal government has NO POWER to regulate arms among the people. Period.
That means firearms, knives, axes, brass knuckles, rocks or what have you. It also prohibits "infringement", meaning that the populace cannot be disarmed based on location, nation emergency status, criminal record, weapon type, interstate commerce restrictions, ammunition type, design and function, visibility or whether the arms are bought or manufactured. It also could be argued that an excise tax is an infringement if it were great enough to put a purchase outside the means of the people.
Yes, I included "criminal record". It's the job of the courts to put away criminals in an appropriate manner when they demonstrate themselves to be dangerous. It's not the responsibility of the non-violent non-criminal populace to be disarmed victims in the false hope that criminals will reform by example. And it certainly isn't the job of the federal government to make that disarmament mandatory.
The states may practice disarmament, but they have to amend their constitutions to do so. Amend, not ignore. With that in mind, the default position of a free man is that he retains the right unless the state legislature revokes it -- and they can't disarm-by-statue when the state's constitution has codified the right.
Yes, I included "criminal record". It's the job of the courts to put away criminals in an appropriate manner when they demonstrate themselves to be dangerous. It's not the responsibility of the non-violent non-criminal populace to be disarmed victims in the false hope that criminals will reform by example. And it certainly isn't the job of the federal government to make that disarmament mandatory.
A point with which I completely agree, and have myself made more than once, although I don't think I've ever stated it as well as you just did.
45Super,
Thanks for coming over and discussing with me the problems I have with Democrats. I always highly value your opinions.
I posted a response that may shed a bit more light on what I meant...and you make a great point about considering candidates based upon their merits.
D. Martyn, thank you, for paying any attention to what I have to say. Your respect means more to me than I can express. I should also thank you for giving me a much larger voice than I would otherwise have--your inclusion of Armed and Safe in your Second Amendment Roundup generates a significant amount of site traffic that I would not have otherwise.
Hey, that's great to hear. I often wonder just how many people actually click on all those links I provide. Sounds like in your case it was worked out very well. I'm glad to hear that.
Blogs come a dime a dozen. Good blogs are rare. And yours is one of the good ones.
45superman:
A point with which I completely agree, and have myself made more than once, although I don't think I've ever stated it as well as you just did.
Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm the one reading your blog, after all.
Repetition is what it's about, so you'll just have to excuse me while I echo your words. :o)
Post a Comment